It's a big problem if you don't trust science. It leads to people's deaths in our current environment. Research has shown that much of the misinformation we face is intentional and organized, and that lies seem to spread faster online and are often stickier than the truth.
To try and outline an up-to-date and cohesive overview on how to tackle this wicked problem, a group of psychologists dug into the scientific literature on persuasion and communication.
One of the biggest myths about communicating science is that presenting people with knowledge will make them act in a certain way. The mode of communication we're using here is known as the information deficit model and it's a model that we have many examples of how it doesn't work.
Everyone used to accept vaccinations as a standard thing. Recent developments have made it easier to convince people against the scientific consensus on vaccinations.
People have a lot of legitimate reasons for their distrust.
industries are degrading trust in science by hijacking scientific credentials, usingciency sounding claims to bolster their clout for profits, and pharmaceutical companies have many reasons not to trust them The media is stoking sentiment against "elitist" experts and bolstering anti-science views due to the fact that science does not always get things right.
People's trust in scientists is being eroded by all this doubt, conflict, and information overload, as well as those of us who are responsible for conveying scientific information to the public.
One of the main barriers to accepting science is the distrust of the source of information.
Information challenges a person's core beliefs, challenges the group they identify with, or doesn't match their learning style are some of the barriers highlighted.
All four bases reveal what happens when scientific information conflicts with what people already think or their style of thought.
Lack of trust in the information source is a main reason people don't accept scientific information.
Legitimate and robust scientific debate can confuse people who are not familiar with the scientific process.
The researchers suggest highlighting the communal nature of science in order to combat trust issues. The team says that acknowledging other people's positions and any drawbacks in your own can help establish trust.
Philipp-Muller says that pro-science messages can acknowledge that there are valid concerns on the other side but explain why the scientific position is better.
The way our thinking is wired as an obligatorily social species makes us vulnerable to sometimes blindly believing those we identify with as part of our own cultural group. The phenomenon is called cultural cognitive.
Philipp-Muller and colleagues wrote about how people contort scientific findings to fit with values that matter to their culture.
Conservatives are more likely to believe scientists on Fox News than liberals are.
Philipp-Muller says that conservatives and liberals can get a lot of different information from social media platforms.
We need to find common ground, create information that's framed for specific target audiences, and collaborate with communities that hold anti-science views.
Information that challenges our social or personal beliefs such as morals and religion can lead to logical fallacies and cognitive biases.
The team wrote that "Scientific information can be difficult to swallow and many individuals would sooner reject the evidence than accept information that suggests they might have been wrong" Scientists should be prepared to empathise with this inclination.
Showing an understanding of the other person's viewpoint is one of the main strategies to counter this.
People get their defenses up if they think they are being attacked or that they are different from someone else. You can find places where you agree and work from there.
Increasing someone's general scientific literacy can backfire because it provides the skill to strengthen their beliefs. Increasing scientific reasoning and media literacy skills, prebunking, or inoculating people against misinformation are recommended instead.
There is a simple mismatch in how information is presented and the style best suited to the receiver. Being promotion or prevention focused is one of the things that this includes.
Philipp-Muller and team suggest using the same tactics that anti-science forces have used. Similar to the technology and advertising industry, researchers should be using data to better target their messages.
While the current level of public acceptance of research can be disappointing, the good news is that it's still high compared to other information authorities.
As much as we pride ourselves on being logical beings, we are just as messy as our logic is. People involved with science must understand and account for this.
The review was published in a peer reviewed journal.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
